What is Dasein?

Of course, we don’t even agree on the meaning of “reasonable” … so this exchange can’t be anything more than babble. :laughing:

Iambiguous, I refer you to this post:

viewtopic.php?p=2701133#p2701133

I am not going to waste my time getting into the details with your “intellectual contraption” when you are not equipped with the foundations.

Here is one rival ‘good’ from Being and Time;

In BT as above there are two perspectives to what is Dasein.
Thus your clinging to one perspective of eternal torture of being-in-a-HOLE is definitely inauthentic [you need to understand this term precisely].

As I had mentioned you need to understand [not necessary agree] fully re ‘What is Dasein?’ and what is authentic/inauthentic in relation to this particular hole-issue of yours.

You quote the above re Buddhist Ethics without understanding the full picture which I am sure you will NEVER ever bother to read and understand.

If you understand the full perspectives [the details of the 4NTs and 8FPs - I have posted very often previously] of what you quoted above you would be able to get an effective head start to your dilemma.

Notice the narrative. How it places him and other people in a hierarchy. How this could make the hole comfortable.

Because there are people who believe there are no objective values who move on from there, even thrive, have goals. There are a couple here.

If one makes oneself the brave victim and stay at the realization one does not believe in objective morals, refuse, then, to act in the world, grapple at others and feel superior when they neither 1) drop into the hole or 2) move forward without considering it a hole, the only pleasure left is to posit oneself as superior. Which is a lot easier than trying to do or make something one values, even if one does not consider it objectively good.

And lots of people get off on their holes. Puns accepted if not intended.

People don’t want to be killed by tornadoes or earthquakes or volcanic eruptions or tidal waves either. But who accuses these “natural disasters” of being immoral?

Unless, of course, some come to argue that God ought not to have created a planet where these calamitous events happen all the time.

It can be said that God or Nature created human biology, precipitating any number of contexts in which the death or the birth of the unborn takes place. And while both are clearly predicated on the objective facts embedded in the evolution of life on planet earth, they precipitate in turn very, very different reactions.

Why then don’t our reactions here revolve around the sort of knowledge and experience an ethicist can glean from his or her own understanding of human biology?

Doctors can be praised by some for being skilled at aborting embryos and fetuses, while being condemned by others for acting immorally in doing precisely that.

Okay, Mr. Ethicist, using your knowledge and experience, tell us the moral obligation of all rational men and women here.

All I ever do is to make the distinction between those who insist their way to approach social, political and economic confrontations that involve conflicting goods is the right way, versus those who argue that given conflicting sets of assumptions, conflicting goods can be defended.

So you are either telling us that how you view Communism is the way in which all reasonable people ought to, or you are acknowledging – re “you’re right from your side and I’m right from mine” – that there are those able to reasonably defend Communism given a different set of assumptions about human interactions: “we” more than “me”, “cooperation” more than “competition”, the “collective” more than “individualism”.

I’m merely noting that over the years I have come to abandon objectivism here. That, instead, here and now, I have come to grapple with human morality based on how I have come to construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

No, I argue that assessments of success and failure are largely existential contraptions rooted in dasein historically and culturally. Whereas the objectivists insist that the only rational measure of either one is their own.

This always revolves around the behaviors either prescribed or proscribed in any particular community in order to achieve the so-called “ideal” society.

Do aborted babies suffer? Are they tortured? Are they dying? What should a successful, ethical soiety prescribe and proscribe here?

You have come back to this particular frame of mind a number of times. Of course, from my frame of mind, I imagine that being convinced can only happen when a particular moral narrative/political agenda is accepted by both sides. One side convinces the other.

That this is an option for folks like you is, in my view, precisely that which sustains the comfort and the consolation embodied in a life that revolves around the “real me” in sync with an optimal set of moral guidelines.

Again, as I see it, that is basically the whole point of objectivism.

But that just brings us [okay, me] back to the actual political contraption that any particular community employs in any particular historical and cultural context.

1] Might makes right. Those in power are able to enforce a set of behaviors such that the outcomes that they favor prevail. Either because they are convinced these outcomes reflect “the right thing to do”, or because these outcomes sustain their own selfish interests.

2] right makes might. Folks in the community come to agree on a particular outcome as the embodiment of an enlightened human morality.

3] Democracy and the rule of law. Folks have conflicted assessments of the optimal outcomes but through moderation, negotiation and compromise different sets of political prejudices rise and fall depending on who is able to convince the citizens to vote them into power. The idea being that they are then willing to step aside [peacefully] should the populace come to view them with disfavor.

My argument here is basically that the outcomes that individuals prefer given a particular frame of mind in any particular context, is rooted historically and culturally in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

And that the manner in which I have come to understand the existential interactions of these components out in a particular world have precipitated my dilemma above.

How, then, I ask the objectivists, has it not precipitated the same dilemma regarding their own conflicted behaviors with others.

And that would surely be a problem if we lived in a world where folks couldn’t agree [or be shown] what it means to be reasonable regarding their interactions with others as they are understood by, say, epistemologists, mathematicians, scientists, engineers, plumbers, meteorologists or dentists.

In fact, regarding the overwhelming preponderance of our interactions with others in the either/or world, we can clearly agree on what either is or is not reasonable.

It’s only when we bump into conflicts that revolve around conflicting value judgments that what appears to be reasonable to some may well be construed as babble to others.

Is it or is it not reasonable to argue that this exchange is unfolding on this particular thread on this particular board in this particular internet philosophy community? Is it or is it not reasonable to argue that we don’t agree regarding the components of our respective narratives? Is it or is it not reasonable to note all of the facts that can be demonstrated to others regarding our own individual lives on this particular day?

On the other hand, is or is it not reasonable to argue that my points are more objectively true than yours?

Again, you don’t say what “reasonable” means. You simply repeat the word as though we have a common understanding of it. Which would seem to be an understanding which transcends personal dasein.

How could we have this common understanding?

Why limit yourself to historical and cultural roots? Any preference that any individual pulls out of his ass has to be just a valid. Crazy, logical, illogical, stupid, clever, reasonable, unreasonable … it’s all the same … an individual’s particular frame of mind based purely on personal likes, wants, preferences.

You can’t say that one individual’s preferences are better than some other individual’s. Right? (Expect your own of course. :smiley: )

So you have a world with billions of preferred outcomes which are equivalent. Or a society with hundreds, thousands or millions of equivalent outcomes.

So you decide morality and ethics by a democratic vote.

But I bet that you prefer that vote over other systems of deciding it because you expect the “normal” people to outvote the bat-shit crazies. When you you get down to it, you are placing your faith in some kind of ‘human nature’ which transcends the historical, cultural and personal “quirkiness”. IOW, the existence of a transcending set of preferences.

Completely irrelevant to the point raised.

Tell me how I can tell you anything without it being dismissed as being only in my head?

So the mass killings of the USSR, the Nazis or the Khmer Rouge were just the “community standard”?

Or maybe the noble efforts of the leadership trying to build an ideal society?

What can one say about it?

Again and again and again: take what you construe to be the “foundations” of Heidegger’s Dasein out into the world of conflicting goods [precipitating conflicting behaviors] and juxtapose it with the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

Instead, it’s straight back up into the clouds of abstraction:

What “on earth” does this means with respect to an experience that you have had in which a value judgment of your own was challenged by another?

All I can do here is make an attempt to grasp how and why you are not down in that hole.

In other words, for all practical purposes.

And then when I try to bring Buddha down to earth here…

…I get this:

Note to others:

What crucial point about the Buddha here do I keep missing?

From my frame of mind, Prismatic’s take on Heidegger and Buddha and 4NTs and 8FPs, is analogous to Phyllo’s take on Communism. If I truly understood them the way that he does then I would share his assessment/argument about them.

And then – presto! – I would be up out of the hole.

Well, sure, if you wish to convince yourself that I am “comfortable” being down in a hole that revolves around a moral narrative that revolves around a belief that human interactions in the is/ought world revolve around an essentially absurd and meaningless world that ends for all of eternity in oblivion for “I”, then, well, okay, I doubt I will ever convince you otherwise.

But that still doesn’t apprise me of how you are not down in it yourself when your own value judgments come into conflict with others.

Either regarding the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, the meaning of conflicting goods or the meaning of political economy. Out in a particular context that we might all be familiar with.

You yourself either are able to sustain some level of comfort and consolation embodying the “real me” in sync with one or another moral narrative/political agenda or you’re not.

Instead, we get something stuffed down into the murky middle:

Okay, then describe an actual context for us and note how for all practicl purposes this actually works. Give us some examples of how you moved on. Sure, folks can take a “leap of faith” to one or another “political prejudice” and think themselves into believing this need be as far as they go.

But how is this not also embedded in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

And what happens when you come upon those who reject your own leap of faith in favor of one of their own? Or when they do embrace one or another objective morality? How are you not confronted with either might makes right or moderation, negotiation and compromised behaviors.

Again, illustrate your text here. Show us how your frame of mind allows you to “thrive” in the midst of a world where moral conflagrations are still everywhere.

Instead [as always] it’s back up into the realm of the “general description”.

What on earth am I to make of this?

Note to others:

If this makes sense to you please cite some examples relating to your own life or the lives of others that you know. Examples which clearly note how one can “thrive” socially, politically and economically while escaping the hole I’m in and the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein insofar as you acquire your value judgments.

In other words, inside an existential contraption as opposed to being derived from a philosophical examination of conflicting goods.

I believe you will NEVER get out of your own self-created HOLE.

Your case is like this guy and others of the likes. The damage is already embedded deep in the brain and no amount of offering of help will save him from the street ‘hole’. If any solution, it will only be temporary and they will fall back into the HOLE in time.

I am not expecting you to understand me.
What I am accusing you is you lack intellectual integrity by relying on reference to Heidegger and the Buddha without understanding the substance of the matter.

This always reminds me of a child resisting his parents … “I’m not going to be like you” and “you can’t make me do anything”. :laughing:

My point revolves more around those things in which we can all agree it is reasonable to believe that they are true.

Is it reasonable to believe that Prince Harry is still a bachelor? Well, we can look up the meaning of the word and then decide, based on what we think we know is true, whether he still is or is not.

Suppose one person says it is reasonable to believe that he is still a bachelor while another insists it is reasonable to believe that he is not. Is there a way for us to determine which point of view is in fact the reasonable one?

Yeah, I think so.

On the other hand, suppose someone argues that it is reasonable to believe that a man is better off being a bachelor, while another argues it is reasonable to believe that a man is better off not being a bachelor.

Would this discussion revolve more around the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein and conflicting goods, or around a philosophical assessment of that which constitutes a rational frame of mind here.

And then the political economy component comes into play when a man decides to marry another man, and resides in a political jurisdiction that forbids it.

Here we can argue that it is reasonable to believe that the man is not lawfully married. But what of the discussion in which it is argued that this political jurisdiction ought to allow him to marry another man?

What might be the “common understanding” in regard to this?

Okay, cite an example of a preference that you just pulled out of your ass.

How exactly would that work? Out of the blue, with absolutely no context whatsoever, something just spontaneously pops into your head and that becomes the basis for your preference?

We can offer arguments to support our own set of assumptions. But so can those who embrace the oppositie point of view. Those who choose the oppositie behaviors.

Just go here – procon.org/ – and peruse all of the available issues. Arguments pro and con that are not just pulled out of someone’s ass.

And my point on this thread focuses more on the manner in which individual men and women come to acquire their own set of values. In other words, the extent to which that is or is not rooted in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein.

This just reflects the manner in which you twist my conjectures into some sort of obtuse monstrosity that goes nowhere near the actual interactions of conflicted human beings.

Which some construe to be the best of all possible worlds. The moral narrative regarding abortion can be enforced by one or another state, by one or another community consensus or by a political tug of war in which the rule of law prevails.

As for the “‘normal’ people out-voting the bat-shit crazies”, choose a particular conflicting good and let’s try to pin down the manner in which you differentiate them.

No, when you get down to it. And, when you do, this is what my frame of mind here gets twisted into. I become, what, another Satyr insisting that my own take on “human nature” transcends all others?

And, of course, this is something that only you get to decide.

Over and over and over again, I seem able to reduce you down to arguing that I am arguing something that I am not arguing at all.

I don’t dismiss all of the points raised by others as existing only in their heads. I ask them to connect the dots between what they do believe is true in their heads here and now to an argument in which an attempt is made to convince others that they too ought to believe it is true. Why? Because it can be demonstrated in turn that all reasonable men and women are obligated to believe that it is true.

Then it is just a matter of choosing a particular set of behaviors in a particular context and attempting to differentiate that which does appear to be true for all of us and that which seems more invested in particular subjective/subjunctive opinions.

And they don’t call them “personal opinions” for nothing.

I think somehow there may be a sort of process going on maybe extra-per(pre)ceptive which in some subliminal way can connect such dots , even supposing this on a strictly hypothetical basis., supposing opinions are basically sensory based operations.

My point had nothing to do with God or natural disasters. But you ask “But who accuses these “natural disasters” of being immoral?”. And you bring in God for no particular reason except perhaps to avoid dealing with the point.

You set yourself up as the judge on whether the dots have been connected or not.

You set yourself up as the judge on whether something has been demonstrated or not.

You set yourself up as the judge on whether a particular context has been set up and presented and whether it is being discussed substantively.

And astonishingly, nobody manages to meet your expectations. Your reasons amount to little more than that “you are not convinced”.

You do that over and over.

Is it surprising that I don’t want to answer your question and go down the same road yet again? It’s all been covered.

Is there something that can be discussed without getting your standard responses?